Incorrect login detailsYour account is permanently bannedYour account has been placed under a protective block for security reasons. Please contact support.Your account has been deletedYou have reached the limit of authorised attemptsYour account name has been blacklistedThis Ankama account is protected by the Authenticator.

"I'm the only one that brought some numerical proof that they were OP" -hearty

Look, you did not give numerical proof for anything, nor did I. I did not see any spreadsheets with damage done for different classes, statistical data on how many groups successfully complete content with or without fecas, or how long it takes for the groups that bring or not the class.

That would be proof.

We dont have any, so our arguments are abstract.

We are having a discussion of concepts and ideas. I am trying to constantly reaffirm that im not super into the endgame and i really cant tell if fecas are OP or not. Im just in the argument to try to understand why you (and many others) seem to think they are, and trying to figure out if its really a problem with the feca class or with other game aspects.

Quote (Hearttyace @ 01 March 2016 05:36)

You know how incredibly selfish, ignorant and biased it sounds to say "Everyone else is UP and Feca is balanced"?

Quote (Hearttyace @ 02 March 2016 03:21)

No one asked for what you suggested.

Quote (Hearttyace @ 02 March 2016 05:30)

I insulted someone?

Discussions only exist if there are different views or opinions. You have shown you dont care to hear others opinions, and are willing to call anyone trying to argue differently ignorant selfish or whatever.
I can be wrong or mistaken.
But to help me change my opinion to the better (assuming you are right) you have to be able to actualy argue. If you just say "if you think what you do you are ignorant", well, you are just rude and dont know how to discuss.

Bleh, i give up trying to quote.

Regarding Hearty's longer post,

Look, what makes me say that "maybe fecas are the balanced ones" is that it seems like people want them around. I never see sac tanks or fogger tanks or even sadi tanks. It might be just me and the people i end up playing with, but im afraid that most people who had those classes just gave up tanking with them, and if fecas get nerfed ill have to give up trying to make my feca a tank too. My concern is that what groups want from tanks is a tank+support combination similar to what fecas have, and that the best way to balance things out is to make the support fecas can give be available to other classes. Granting ap, final damage bonuses etc.
I can't see why it is not a valid concern, or why i have to be selfish or whatever else you called me to want to ask if this wouldent be the case.

In your last post, you did actually have a interesting paragraph, the one you listed a number of feca abilities you beleive that (either individually or together) are strong.

I just wanted to remind you that not that many of them are so original to fecas. Like Cra's can steal toooooonnns of MP, and while they deal damage. Last time i checked Iops Stabi was super good, and the whole "double stabi" only seems to be a big deal in SB. For most pve content provoke seems to be "nice" at best.

Classes that can summon things to lean on (like barrel or a barricade) also have a edge against not getting pushed in many fights, even if they are not actualy stabi. And its easy to call a feca's toolkit powerfull by looking at the available spells, since the classes spells are support oriented and almost always have effects on them. But no feca can have everything in their deck, or even leveled, so its not like a feca can do everything in a actual fight.

Its obvious that there are things unique to fecas. Every class does. Noone ever complained that Cras can shoot farther then they can. I just get the impression that fecas are very strong at Steelbeak, and can remove too much resistance, and the community does not realize that its just a -resistance problem and a strength in one particular fight, and think the entire class is unbalanced.

aww i wrote another post by accident, i wanted to edit this one into my other one :/

Quote (Hearttyace @ 02 March 2016 06:45)

I didn't need spreadsheets, is why. I've gave you comparsions.

1. Glyphs, Avalanche and Fecablades are uncomparable to any other class. I would go in to deeper detail but just look up like every single post in this thread from me. It mentions it, or look at last page as it has a more detailed response on it.
2. The one class that has a spell similar to Teleport(Sacrier) doesn't gain back resources for using it, and doesn't fall under an unusual restriction (Only being able to transport one type of unit)
3. 150 resist is 44% more resist than Sacrier may obtain and the same amount that Sadida may obtain after severtal turns of preparation while Feca has it always.
4. No class may buff more than 20% final damage currently, Making Feca the strongest offensive support.
5. PA is the most powerful spell considering it has unlimited potential, which is actually the thing Feca should be known for but isn't any longer.
6. Their buffs are in-proportionate to their only support counter parts (Osa) as we did the Tonic comparsion last page,

Firstly i suggest you look up the definition of proof.

1-Glyphs are a feca class mechanic. That is like complaining no other class can make portals like Elios.
2- Well, last i checked Elios could teleport others, as could Xelors. Gaining resources(?) would be MP? Thats not part of the spell, its a passive. So you kinda have to spend a passive to be able to do that. I dont think its a big deal.
3- And Sacs have 10x more shields then fecas and twice the health. Your point is? Each class has a different way to be durable, im not even sure if fecas have the strongest one. If they do, its not obvious that Sacs shouldent get a bit more hp instead of nerfing feca resists. Its not like fecas dont die in pve.
4-Well, enis can buff 20% in Aoe. And if a feca is actually tanking there are good chances that they wont be in LoS to buff. When i play i buff the first turn and usualy have a hard time buffing allies later. I can glyph because it doesent need LoS, but meteor or volcano are hard to place on allies unless they are CC.
5-Sure PA is great. Personally i think the feca trademark is high resistance, not PA but that is a bit offtopic. Not sure what you are trying to say here, you dont seem to be complaining about this one. You think PA should be the only good thing fecas can do, is that it? Glad you are not the game designer.
6-I didint read the comparision you mentioned, ill have to go back to it and edit the post later. And if only osas and fecas can support (I thought Sadis, Enis, xelors, and tons of other classes could all be built as support), is it just me that thinks that's a problem? Out of like 20 classes why are only osas and fecas considered able to support?

Anyhow, Im just trying to point out what i see as argumentative flaws that make the idea a bit unconvincing. Ill just keep playing and figure out for myself if its OP or not, this doesent seem to be a very productive thread.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

"I'm the only one that brought some numerical proof that they were OP" -hearty

Look, you did not give numerical proof for anything, nor did I. I did not see any spreadsheets with damage done for different classes, statistical data on how many groups successfully complete content with or without fecas, or how long it takes for the groups that bring or not the class.

That would be proof.

We dont have any, so our arguments are abstract.

We are having a discussion of concepts and ideas. I am trying to constantly reaffirm that im not super into the endgame and i really cant tell if fecas are OP or not. Im just in the argument to try to understand why you (and many others) seem to think they are, and trying to figure out if its really a problem with the feca class or with other game aspects.

Quote (Hearttyace @ 01 March 2016 05:36)

You know how incredibly selfish, ignorant and biased it sounds to say "Everyone else is UP and Feca is balanced"?

Quote (Hearttyace @ 02 March 2016 03:21)

No one asked for what you suggested.

Quote (Hearttyace @ 02 March 2016 05:30)

I insulted someone?

Discussions only exist if there are different views or opinions. You have shown you dont care to hear others opinions, and are willing to call anyone trying to argue differently ignorant selfish or whatever.
I can be wrong or mistaken.
But to help me change my opinion to the better (assuming you are right) you have to be able to actualy argue. If you just say "if you think what you do you are ignorant", well, you are just rude and dont know how to discuss.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

Fecas ever had a problem finding a party? I mean they were pretty powerful before. Sure they weren't foggers, but they dealt really nice damage (comparable with the rest of the game) as every class dealt good damage considering allmost every had the same ratios back then, and were definitely competitive tanks before, they were equal to or greater than Sacriers pre deck.

Well, that's why I always suggest fixing the damage part of any class. Eventually you will out level content and all you will need is damage.That's a game problem. But don't think Feca actually has much of a problem here. Sadida suffers from this problem far more than Feca. Only class that suffers from this problem is sadida and they have damage options. i used feca to powerlevel, my characters, and after you out gear out level content. Parties become just fill the ranks. I don't see your problem.

Least to say, All classes can deal damage currently. So doubt there'll be a problem unless they nerf the damage portion of Feca, which doesn't need a nerf. But Feca does deal decent damage.

No one asked for what you suggested. You want to keep Feca the one class that does do that though. Game has funtioned with tanks for some time Wakfu, there are other tanks in the game. Stop acting like nerfing Fecas will completely change the game. It'll just make it more reasonable to use other tanks. You asked to trivialize the game by saying "buff everyone to feca standards"

Xelor present HC on release was far to hard to do without tank btw. People tend to forget but most DDs aren't fully DDs there's like 3 classes that are close to full DDs, but positioner is a role, just as much as support and damage. So it's usually a slot for positioner too.

im not sure we were playing the same game...

Before the feca revamp when the cap was 140 the class couldent tank. It had no lock passives to reach lock caps for the content that needed lockers at the time, nor any kind of map control (pulls pushes etc) to bring enemies into lock in the first place.

After the first feca revamp, they were awesome tanks, but the content just didint need any. Enurado you cant even hit the boss if someone is near him, and i always felt that srambad was a dumb gimmicky dungeon where the trick is to kill everything before it becomes too much of a problem and someone messes up positioning.

And fecas have no passives for final damage bonuses or extra crits like most classes enjoy, and on top of that the base spell damage on most their spells is pretty mediocre. Exeptions are crashing wave and the aoe fire glyph, if you assume it hits the target(s) twice. The only damage related passives (aside carnage) are to boost indirect damage and the flaming carpet. Indirect damage is like 2 glyphs that have 3 turn cds. Maybe flaming state as well.

Heck, half our spells cant even attack, are armors/glyphs to buff/debuff. We do not recieve our own volcano armor FD or inversion, and have to spend our ap if we want to give ourselves meteor, reducing what we can cast.

It can be enough to be competitive in pvp, since the glyphs can enjoy resistance reductions and bypass armors, but thats just because fecas *outlast* enemies in pvp.

The thread is not about pvp.

I have never ever seen a feca do competitive damage in PVE, i really think you are having a very distorted impression of the class or comparing very well itemized high level fecas to lower level unruned other classes.
The class is clearly and indisputably made to be tank and or support, not a DD.

I never asked to trivialize the game. I just want tanking to be part of it. I think fecas are the only tank that is working well atm, and im afraid Ankma will listen to a hoard of people saying fecas are op and think "welp, guess they dont want tanks". Which i think is what would actually trivialize the game.

And i farmed hm xelor as soon as it was out, we never used a tank. I guess people could have used one but hitting him exclusively with ranged DD, but what i always saw was a combination of pushing him back wich a crobax and maybe stealing mp with virulent sidekick.

And by the way

Quote (peppersxiu @ 01 March 2016 13:21)

Quote (YetAnotherNewbie @ 01 March 2016 00:39)

If fecas are doing something well and are getting picked over other classes for the tank/support role, maybe other classes should get buffed in that regard.

Hearttyace answer that perfectly imo. There's no need for buffing no one as the content can be done without Feca by knowing how to play and beeing creative and cooperative. So the solution points to reworking Feca.

All he did was whine that fecas were imbalanced and his *only* example was that -200 resists made it too easy. Which I already agreed to. I cant see how his awnser was perfect.

Im still not convinced anything other then inversion needs reworking, and neither of you guys are doing a good job producing good arguments.

Hearty is pretty much just insulting anyone who disagrees with him, making stuff up and repeating the same things over and over again.

Pepper makes interesting points and is able to discuss in a civil way, but most seem to be biased opinions, not practical examples that there is something wrong with anything besides inversion and excessive resistance removal.

My biggest problem is that i dont think you guys want to be able to replace fecas with sacs, foggers, or other tanks in general. You want to be able to replace them with anything.

That is the problem. That is why i am defending to buff other classes rather then nerf fecas.

Like i already said, its very simple to see that if tanks arent needed they stink. Tanks invest skills and items for lock and resistances, not crits and damage. If a group can do a dungeon without a tank, why would they bring someone with less damage and have it take longer? Sure, some friends might just because you are friends, but soon enough it will be too frustrating to play realizing your character is not optimal.

I still think that it is great that every group wants a feca. All that needs to be done is make that sentance change to "every group wants a tank". Buff the other tanks and everything is fine.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

Maybe, like i said im just getting back at the game now and i really cant tell.

Quote (peppersxiu @ 01 March 2016 13:21)

Imo even if you completely remove the whole suport part of Feca it would still be worth it place in the party due to reduce resists + best tanking + reduce boss dmg and mp.

What worries me is this idea.
I really believe that in wakfu a pure tank is not viable. You have to be either tank/dd or tank/supp.

Its not from a theoretical standpoint, its just the impression the past of the game gave me. Let me explain.

When i last played seriously, and the level cap was somewhat lower, i had a lot of trouble finding groups with my feca.

The thing is, i think every class should be usefull and viable to do content in general. Just as i believe that it is a valid concern if fecas are monopolizing and trivializing high end content, i do think it is a problem if a class is only needed for high end content.

When the level cap was much lower and srambad and enurado had just came out, fecas were already a pretty good tank, but noone seemed to bother having one in a group.

Simply because tanking as a role is only a decent thing to have in a group in the highest of high content, when enemy damage is so big it can one shot group members and healing cant keep up.

If a class can only tank, it neither supports nor contributes to damage, you can be max level and have the best items, you will feel useless in content 30 levels lower just because another DD there would just make it faster. The damage is trivial, tanking is not necessary. There was a point in the game where the only dungeons people would even care if you had lock or not were Wa wabbit and Dragonpig. Its really frustrating to have a character that seems to only be wanted in two specific instances of a game, and im super worried this happens again.

Even at high level content at some point people get the items from the dungeons they are farming and tanks seem to loose space.

I felt that the current content and state of the feca class points to a direction in which every group needs a tank, a healer and 4 dds, and i realllyreally really think this is the **right** path for wakfu. I hated it that people could do hc present with 6 dds when it came out. I felt super left out (i have 3 characters and only one, the most recent, is a dd).

The TLDR is: Im okay with balancing the class if it really has a problem, what im afraid of is being left out of most content again. I think dungeons and classes have to be made in a way that running one without a tank and a healer is not viable, or for sake of efficiency they just wont be invited.

And seems like its really hard to design fights to require tanks just for tanking, so i have a lasting impression that tank characters have to contribute with something else too. Of course, if they can dish the same damage as DDs, they are just better (dds with higher resistances), so thats not good. So what is left is support...

I dont know if any of this makes sense to you guys. Im just trying to explain my concern with the whole "fecas are OP" trend, and having that effect the significance tanks have in groups and pve content.

Im afraid that what people are actually asking for is trivial content that they can faceroll with whatever group composition they get their hands on, or that ankama understands the communities complaints as a wish to eliminate the need for tanks. And that would really just kill the game for me.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

The thing that is not obvious to me regarding Fecas being OP is, why are fecas the problem and not all the other supporting roles?

Like, im pretty sure a group of 6 fecas would be pretty fail at pve content. I always thought that if something is super OP its like better then everything else and you could reliably make a group of pretty much just that.

If fecas are doing something well and are getting picked over other classes for the tank/support role, maybe other classes should get buffed in that regard.

If sacs have stabi and mp removal, if Enis, water-tree xelors, sadis get more buffs with their spells, if pandwas -resists gets buffed so it stacks faster and gives more -resists, maybe all of them will be more competitive.
Enis already are going the right way with the aoe heal that gives fd, or the 3 ap heal that gives range. Maybe if they give better support bonuses to the spells that noone picks (like the 1 ap heal, hammile mark, etc), give osas a cheaper ap grant spell, etc, everything will be fine.

I still think that the only spell with fecas that might be problematic is inversion. I see a class that preforms its role competently (tank/support). If either the tank or support part gets nerfed too bad, i dont think fecas will have much room in groups anymore because they have like the worse damage ever. They have to do what they do Reaaaallllllyyy well to make up for another class that would be actually helping kill stuff.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

About number 8, i took a while to figure out damage calculations, and only really understood it after spending a few hours on a training dummy with a notebook and a calculator, so i figured i would try to help a bit.

Take your TDO, divide it by the enemy resistance reduction % to obtain unresisted damage.
Divide subtract 20% if blocked for unblocked damage.
Subtract barrier if applicable.
The remaining damage strikes the enemy armor first, if there is any, then his health.

Notice that:
-Attacks from the front have normal damage
-attacks from the sides have +10%FD
-Attacks from the back have +25% FD
-Criticals have +25% base damage.

-Single-target damage/area target damage depend on the **spell**, not how many people you hit. A spell with a area of effect counts for area damage and not single damage, even if you hit only one person.

She shoots poor Gobbly, who has 50% fire resistance from the front at 4 squares range.
Since it is from the front, her backstab damage does not apply. Since it is single target and more then 3 squares away, her distance damage and single target damages apply. It does not crit (Ann is frustrated she never crits!).

Gobbly did not block and does not have barrier, so he takes 325*50/100 = 162.5 damage. In wakfu, the decimal damage parts translate to a chance to do the higher or lower values, so he will take 162 or 163 damage, with 50% chance for each.

Now, lets say Ann shoots gobbly again, but this time she finnaly crits! She also moved around to backstab him. This turn her friend SupportySupport cast YummyYumYum on her. Its a bonus 10% final damage spell!

Unfortunately, Ann is only 2 squares range so she does not deal her distance damage.

I believe the idea of guild haven worlds is for the entire guild to sit in it, look at the great room full with buildings and decorations, remember the years it took to get it together, and feel awesome.

That is diminished if you can spend 100 bucks and make it on a whim.

I can understand the desire to want it to be faster, but i do believe that time costs are important, mostly for the guild itself, their unision and sense of accomplishment.

I stumbled by this thread and couldn't help but want to join the discussion.

Although my first character is my Eni, i made my feca soon after and i really like her. Makes me wonder a bit why the OP would post here instead of in general.
Does he hope feca-players might have a insight to balancing the class he believes is unbalanced?

I think there are two places we should look for balance problems in classes.
The first is in the class implementation. The spells and passives it has, and how they interact together and with a team.
The second is at the class concept itself.

The Feca class concept is of "Protectors". Resistant themselves and able to protect their team. The concept itself shouts out "tank" and "support".

Now, i should start by admitting i can' t tell if fecas are too strong or not in PvE (and even less at pvp, i dont really care for that part of the game and dont think perfect pvp balance is even possible in a rpg game with different classes - some class concepts will always translate better to pvp, and if you remove that classes will be bland).

I stopped playing for quite a while and came back recently, and just got to a high enough level to start looking at steelbeak and the moon dungeons. The only one i did so far is the new koko dungeon.

But to be honest people dont seem to care for having fecas in particular in their group, all they want is one thing we bring: -resists.

Whenever i joined a group for pretty much anything the first thing they asked me was "Do you know how to -resists?". I thought the question was kinda silly, not much to know in applying volcano and inversion.
Still, that seemed to be the main concern. Not the fact that Fecas can take a punch, nor the +AP, final damagem shields or bubble armor they can give.

What i am getting at is: I do not have the impression that there is a problem with the feca class concept for PvE balance. Naturally, a feca tank will have more team support skills then a sacrier tank, but the sacrier will do much more damage. It does seem like sacriers in particular need buffs (i was told that to get really tanky they need to sacrifice too much map control, which seems like a design flaw to me).

I understand PA and provoke can be usefull skills (stabi seems important for sb and its always nice to make someone invulnerable, specially without loosing their turn). But to be honest i dont think they are game breaking at all. Firstly, they fit well in the class concept, and classes **should** be able to do impressive feats within their specialization. I beleive Eniripsas **should** heal more then anyone else. I believe Iops **should** be devastating once they get into close combat. I believe cras **should** be unmatched if allowed to stay shooting from afar. So fecas **should** have powerfull protective abilites like PA and provoke, and high resistances.

To me, the only ability i feel is outside the class concept, and i belive is the main reason for the OP' s complain is Inversion;

To be honest i dont like inversion, i think its a dumb ability. I think Volcano armor is enough -resists for a Feca to contribute to the teams damage output. Wakfu community keeps wanting to do content with cheap tricks and in the quickest way possible, and the playes that wanted to play a tank, a protector, find themselves forced to become a walking inversion beacon. Half the times the people that want you to "remove his resistance" have no idea how inversion works, dont position to get bonus damage, or want you to use it when tons of monsters you are not tanking are in range and will really punish your group.

If you ask me, removing inversion from fecas would solve the entire percieved unbalance for our class. But i believe it will not make OP´s perceptions of game disbalance any better.

If fecas lose one of their -resists, i believe end game teams will just make other classes with -resists become mandatory as well to make up for it. Then you will see all end game teams be something like Sadi+feca, or pandwa + sadi or whatever become mandatory. The four classes that can remove resistances (Sadis, Eliotropes, Fecas and Pandwas) will all still be percieved as valuable.

If you want groups to not be dominated by specific class combinations in difficult content i see two methods:
-Give all classes equal ability to make a fight faster (in this case, -resists).
-Take it away from all classes.

That is pretty much it. The ability to make a fight last 1 hour instead of two will always be valuable. Either remove it or make it trivial, else it will always be a thing. I hardly believe fecas are **required** for end-game content. There are tons of videos in the net of steelbeak groups that dont have a feca. When i was looking for one i actualy had to look for a while to find one WITH a feca. Fecas are wanted not because content is impossible without them, but because they can make it quicker. Because of inversion.

-Ari

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

If i might add my 2 cents to this discussion, i believe one of the biggest problems with Wakfu is the endless class revamps in the first place.

Not that many classes don't need to be changed because they are either weak or dont have appealing game-play.

Because it puts too much time between one class change and another's. The game-context in which once-valid changes were made are modified and a recent revamp is quickly outdated. Worse, these punctual revamps make it hard for developers to be able to make class design choices that permit each class to have a unique appeal.

Shielding, used to be a somewhat "special" ability, limited to gobgob osas, earth Sadi's, and (to a more limited degree) sacs. Now Feca's and Iops also have it (Yay half the game's classes can shield).
Granting AP used to be a Xelor trademark, now Feca's and Iops also can.
Self stabilization used to be a Iop Unique, now Cra's can too, and i get the feeling its just because they were revamped together and they recicled a skill.
Whats with the double Srams have? How does that have anything to do with the whole "assassin" class concept? That self-shielding lock-stick that can push is too me a overpowered utility that the class got just because designers couldent think of anything better to put on the spell slot.

What im getting at is that the way changes are being made seems to be in the direction of "give every class everything". I dont think anyone wants that, whats the point of playing a rpg if class choices are meaningless?

And all of these recent revamps... Well, Currently max level players have very few specialties they *dont* chose. Its hardly a choice for many classes. You take all specialties exept for "that bad one".

Isint it kinda obvious there will have to be some sort of Specialty revamp somewhat soon?
Arent you guys that *just got revamped* a tid bit worried that when this happens you might get stuck with awefull changes and put last in the "revamp line"?

Similar things already happened in the game history.

For example, the Feca class revamp came just before the game's overall stat overhaul, which included changes to player health, resistance, and locking mechanism. Feca players that were happy because they became "awesome tanks" with the revamp soon found out that tanking wasent quite the same thing (regardless if you agree or not that tanking still exists in the game, it should be easy to see that its kinda mean to, right after changing a class, changing game elements that define their role).

My entire point is that revamping classes 1 by 1 or 2 by 2 is a mistake.

Game designers should give a few balancing measures all around just to keep the classes that are currently kinda underpowered at least competitive, and revamp *everything* at the same time.

I think its the only way i can see they can give each class mechanisms that seem unique and interesting, instead of just throwing at whatever class is getting revamped the ideas they currently have, without really keeping consistency between classes and their proposed strengths.

Plus, by defining each class simultaneously, they can make it more permanent. Flat numeric bonuses and scaleable passives with caps are bound to require revamping just because as the game progresses and players gain items with more and more powerfull stats, a limited ability loses comparative strength in the end game context. A Specialty that gives 50% bonus damage might be overpowered when the level cap is 100, but kinda stinks now that it is 170.

I think Wakfu is broken in many ways. I think specialization to specific group-roles should be a thing. I think tri-elementing should not be possible.
By guaranteeing players cannot "kinda do everything" with the same character, any character brought to a group to preform his specialized role will feel like he is contributing in a unique way to the group. A tank would tank. A healer would heal. Element specific DD's would not compete with eachother because their elements do not overlap.

Right now a player with higher level and better items is pretty much better at everything, and current class revamp policies are making this worse by giving classes a even wider range of utility. A Eni can outdamage your damage dealers if she has better items, even though she was brought to heal. A Iop can give the entire team AP while he obliterates enemies, making a poor little underleveled xelor that came along to support feel useless.

This is lousy game design, the game is scaling badly the higher levels get, and punctual class revamps will not fix it.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

Dont you think its a bit offensive that someone takes hours to write a guide or make a video and you just stroll in basically saying "im not willing to spend the 20 min it takes to read/watch this, i want you to teach me in a way i dont make any effort at all"?

Would you actually be satisfied with something so abreviated?

If i told you
"max spells A and B from fire branch, C and D from water and E and F from earth, cast these combos: AB->D Or E,F->B(glyph)",
you wouldent be able to tell if what i am saying is nonsense or not. How can you tell if im trolling, if im a newb, if its intended for something different then what you had in mind or if my build just plain stinks. Its kinda absurd anyone would be actually willing to follow such short instructions in the first place.

The point of a guide is to explain the spells and build to the reader so that:
a ) he knows WHY he is doing that (and understanding why you match certain spells in a "combo" makes you a better player because you can tell when it wont work, when you should try something else, etc)
b ) So he can tell you know what you are talking about and that your guide is trustworthy.

I dont think fecas are extremely hard to play or complex, but noone can give a new player good instructions in so few lines anyways (only a veteran player would understand a short explanation).

There would have to be details on when to cast a spell as a glyph/armor or when to use them directly. Spellchoices depend on the build strengths (DDing, supporting, damaging, pvp, pve, etc). How and when to properly use the specialties. And even explanations on base mechanics (how the feca shields stack, for example).

A short guide would be either:
a ) Bad/wrong
b ) OK but very very specific (EX: PvP guide for mid level fecas with limited item budget) - in this case its quite certain that people would start using the guide wrong (for high level Player vs monster fecas, for example), and it would stink in those cases, and the guide-writer would get raged at.

The kind of people that write guides want to teach something that they like and are proud of. They wont write something so partial or incomplete. They will write the complete "wall of text" and hope people actually learn something.

Seriously, just go read a guide or watch the video. I don't think you're "monstrously thick", but coming to a guide thread and asking for a shorter guide wasent just rude, its kinda dumb. How can a new player know better then veteran ones how long a guide has to be?

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

I thought maybe i should clarify that i dont think locking defines a tank.
To me "tanking" means having above average ability to survive (be it health, resistance, shields, block whatever), and being able to in some way protect allies.
I just saw lock as the only mechanism to "protect allies" in wakfu (available to everyone, that is. There is the " trank" ability to take damage directly for a ally, but to me that is very trivial and non-appealing, and the only ones that can do it are sacs and foggers, and even them only to a limited extent).

Im not sure i fully buy some of the replies...

1) I do not think "locking" trivializes fights. Chosing which monsters to lock and actually surrounding yourself with them was often non-trivial. And many had escape mechanics which forced you to have additional considerations (putting them on opposite sides to not knockback you, not having them in line with allies to prevent line-atacks, etc).

If locking enemies is trivial, it is easy to argue that damage dealing is pretty much as trivial as it gets. You use abilities on enemies. Backstab/aoe if you can. There really is not much thought to it.

There are always simple cases and more complex ones.

2) I also do not think content is more difficult then before, but this might be just biased and too little experience (ive only been playing for about a year). I had the impression wabbit castle was alot more exclusive and difficult then sram, enurado and past xelor.

Mayyybeee HC present xelor is harder. I havent seen past p2, it looks pretty hard, but if the dungeon gets nerfed then it wont count. Its hard to compare i guess, but to me it is not obvious that "content is more difficult".

3) I just wanted to clarify what you guys are describing as the " current viable tank". Its a character with 1000+ damage (level 170) that just puts him/herself more or less in the monsters way and supports or damage deals normally? Im having a hard time visualizing it.

This actually works (in the " protecting the team" sense) in a meaningfull way?
You guys think this is a appealing and effective way to implement tanking?

Like, the first room of past xelor. Everyone is spread out in line and surrounded by monsters. I cant really see how a character could " tank" that... I could run up to one monster and teleport him far away from someone... Maybe put a -mp glyph on a monster that isint beside someone yet. But nothing i can think of seems like a meaningfull contribution that would be better then just hitting a monster with a 1200%+ damage character.

Im just trying to understand how what you guys are describing as a "helpfull tank" plays and which items they use.

This post has been edited by YetAnotherNewbie - December 10, 2016, 04:06:34.

450 lock is so little lock that pretty much any class can have as much without getting dedicated lock items.

Sorry but this is bullshit. I dare you to get a Cra, Eca, Sadida, Osa, Enutrof, Masqueraider and Eniripsa to 450 lock without using dedicated lock items.

Unless you dump stat points into lock and/or rune the equipment towards it, which would make all the equipment runed that way a lock dedicated item. Oh and it would also be useless for most of them.

To get to 450 without statting points into lock and without a passive that gives lock, you'd need around 37.5 lock points per equipment slot (450 points divided by the 12 equipment slots).

And i'm even being nice and ignoring the levels (We could have restricted character level to be between 142 and 150).

Maybe i was not crystal clear that by " dedicated lock items" i meant "really putting an effort into having as much lock as you can" . I never said they couldent stat it or have some lock items.

What i meant is that a Iop who figures he will rune/stat lock rather then ini (personally i think ini doesent make sense for CC damage dealers unless its some pvp build, just forces them to advance too much to not waste their first turn - so if i had a iop it might be what i would do) can get to that much lock from some random lock pieces +runes and locker-pro.
Without ever intending to be a tank.

A Cra *could* have 450 lock, it would be a lousy item/stat build, im not going to argue with you there. But any class can get to as much.

So no, its really not "bullshit". Maybe you could say i might have elaborated my point more accurately, but it was quite clear from the start that my intention was to point out that the ammount needed for Wa
post-stat revamp is not much.

But i appreceate the feedback. I do not quite share your point of view on the necessity of lockers. I do hardmode vortrex just fine without one, but maybe its just a matter of trying it with different groups and finding out different playstyles. I really dont fancy changing my tank character into something else, so im pretty much willing to try anything to make her feel fun and usefull again.

But i think its less a issue of how much lock, and more just because lower level monsters have a better chance of having low MP.

I really tried to stack huge ammounts of lock to be able to tank high level monsters, im quite convinced that it cannot be done. With my lock, i tried to lock some xelorium monsters and they escaped anyways, even when i got surrounded(I stat multi lock to be able to get to higher lock ammounts).

Here is how much lock i can get to (with piwi' s because actually getting surrounded by xelor monsters is a pain because they keep escaping):

The problem is that
1) lock is limited to a 5 mp penalty, so high level monsters (which seem to always have 7 mp) can step away no matter how much lock you have.
2) lock suffers from *severe* penalties from the sides and back. Im not sure how much, but i think its halved at the sides and even less at the back. This makes " tanking" multiple monsters quite impossible.

Quote (Tzooon @ 07 March 2015 03:27)

There are too many death tiles and flat damage penalties late game for tanks to be relevant anymore.

Oh i guess i agree with that.

I always thought that these insta=death mechanics and flat damage mechanics are much lamer then something that actually requires team-play, but it seems like they are here to stay ._.

Thoughts about the tanking role.
So, i used to have a feca tank guide. After the stat revamp and level increases it got super outdated.
I never got back to it because i wanted to get back to max level to have a more complete view of tanking at the endgame.

But the more i played, the clearer it was that "tanking" kinda doesent exist anymore.

Im writing this post to explain how i came to this conclusion, and ask the community if they agree, and maybe get some feedback from the developers as to their intentions in regard to tanking mechanics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before explaining why i think tanking does not exist anymore, i feel i should explain how the game was around 6 months ago (before the stat revamp), to give a comparative measure as to how it used to be.

Untill Tormentor dungeon came out, Wa wabbit was the highest level and hardest dungeon. Characters had much less health before the stat revamp, a well geared damager with around 1800HP, a particuarly tanky one wiht 2000ish. Sac' s could get up to 3000-3500. A Cavalier wabbit dealt around 1500-2000 damage in a turn, depending on if he crits.

The important thing to notice is that a single monster could 1 turn a player.

Different groups completed this dungeon with different tactics. Some had rogues (with super high ini) firewall around the place and focused cavaliews before they could kill the group.

Other groups just had a player tank them.

A focused tank could easily reduce the damage with shielding to a point he would survive even 3 cavaliews hitting him for many turns before he needed healing. Locking worked differently as well, with enough lock you could make it so any monster trying to run away simply lost his turn (95% chance with enough lock), so monsters in CC with a tank were pretty much stuck there.

In this scenario, it is easy to see why a tank in the group was beneficial. These were monsters that could 1 turn your healer or damage dealers. a room would have multiple cavaliews, not to mention all the other monsters you need to beat with some urgency(the healing shootews, the mp stealing robots).
Good players would even help position the tank in the first turn simply because it meant that the entire team could focus on killing other monsters while the tank keeps the cavaliers occupied. It was a logical and beneficial strategy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today Wabbit Castle (Wa' s dungeon) is old content, so it is expected that it is easier then when it was launched, or even a year ago.
But what made the biggest difference was the stat revamp(which came together with a change on monster stats). Players now have 2-3 times more health, but the monsters damage is roughtly equivalent.

Now it is quite possible to just let the damage dealers/healers take a few hits while you kill the monsters. Not only that, locking just doesent work as well. The AP/MP penalties are never enough to keep monsters from getting away and hitting someone else. Even the bosses lock requirement fell greatly (before you had to have around 700 lock for wa, now i believe it is around 450).
450 lock is so little lock that pretty much any class can have as much without getting dedicated lock items.

To me, this is clearly Ankama saying "we do not want tanks to be required in this dungeon".

Now, maybe people were complaining that there were too few tanks in the game, too few people could run the dungeon. Maybe alot of players will believe it is good that this content became more accessible (and ill pose the question to the community along those lines at the end of this post).

This may be fine, but i believe that making tanks unneccesary makes tanks bad.

Ill explain:
A tank is, by definition, a character heavily focused in surviving enemy hits, positioning enemies in a way to best protect allies and allow them to attack, and keeping them in that position (as put in the wabbit cavaliew example).

Because of gameplay style, item, ability and stat choices, a tank will have reduced (inefficient) damage (compared to a actual damage dealer). For example, a tank might stat health/resistance instead of damage/resistance with strength points.

Let' s look at a logical thought process:
Now, consider a group going to a dungeon. They can beat it with or without a tank. A tank does less damage then a damage dealer. Thus the dungeon will be faster with a damage dealer.
So you can run the dungeon more in the same amount of time with a damage dealer rather then a tank, which leads to more chances of winning items and rewards.
Thus bringing a damage dealer is better.

I cant really see any flaw in that thought process. Tanks are just bad.

Wel, we are considering they have worse damage. Since the stat revamp, lock items have gained alot of damage%.

Maybe a tank no longer has less damage then a damage dealer!

But wait, If a character will spend his AP/MP to attack enemies efficiently (run around to backstab and such), he will not be really focusing in the whole "controling enemy positioning".
And with the lock revamp, in which monsters that are in CC with the tank are able to escape with some ease, all locking really does is reduce how far away a monster can run, and hopefully how many attacks he can preform.

I tried restating my feca in many different ways trying to figure out how Ankama intends players to tank since the stat revamp... And i either feel useless (when i actually play as a tank) or feel like im not tanking at all, that im just a front like damage dealer (when i play/stat as a DD).

Maybe its just me, but... I really dont think a character with damage dealer playstyle and some secondary stat that reduces a bit of ap/mp from enemies really falls into a entire different " group role".

This is not a tank. Its just a DD with a bit more resistance and some almost useless lock.

a) Tanking is only good if it is REQUIRED. Any content that does not need a tank is completed more efficently without one.
b ) Tanking has (or should have) a different playstyle and item requirements to damage-dealing.
c) Current lock mechanics make tanking near impossible(too few penalties from lock, too severe lock reductions from sides/back, too many monsters with powerfull escape mechanics and large MP pools).
d) Current monster damage is far too low compared to average player health to make tanking required.
e) Current dungeon lock requirements are too low to make tanks required.
f) New content does not have tank-encouraging mechanics (the most recent dungeon with any kind of clear incentive to bring a tank would be Wa - which is 2 years old). Xelorium HC birdy boss, which was my largest hope for a dungeon that needs a tank, is unlockable(or at least does not lose MP) in P1, and attacks max health anyways (like 3K per turn), noone can really tank him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so maybe this is not news to anyone.

Maybe the reader is just "ok, so you just figured this out? Duh, tanks stink for ages now"
Right. So then why does the group finder feature have "Tank" as a role?

To me it is perfectly clear that Ankama thought that having different roles all be important was not "newbie friendly", and simply dumbed down game tactics in which the best strategy is always to have 6 players with as high as possible damage kill everything before they are a problem. Sometimes a positioner or healer helps a bit. And thats it.

But they still kinda "pretend" that there are other player options, just so that when a new player gets to a high enough level he realizes his entire character project is unviable and unwanted.

Its really just mean. If you dont want tanking to be in the game, just say so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestions:

A) Outright say tanking does not exist. Just as there is no role called "dodger" just because a character has alot of dodge, " lock" itself does not define a tank.

Or

B ) Make tanking viable:
-Make content that will require a tank. It does not have to be ALL content. Just some is enough (hardmodes, whatever). Requiring a tank means : massive damage that would kill a non-tank and huge lock requirements (at level 170 i think 600 lock would be a bare minimum).
- Make locking have less severe penalties from the sides/back. Make locking penalties to MP more severe (if you really are concerned about PVP, you can just limit it against players but not against monsters).
-I think locker pro's no-teleport effect should also always work against monsters. Tanking is about reliability (your life/your firends lives are in the line), a skill that works sometimes is almost as bad as one that never does.
-Provocation should be a passive ability to all tanks. Any obvious "tank" passive should have a passive provoke effect that encourages monsters to target that player. Now that tanks cannot stat Init (unless they lose lock to do it), added to tanking items terrible ini, a tank wil be the last to play. By the time it is his turn, monsters will be all over the place (and if their damage is increased as i believe it is necessary for tanking to be a thing, probably two of your allies will be dead by your first turn), making grouping them around you by yourself impossible. The game would need some sort of mechanic that encourages monsters to hit the player actualy designed to get hit for the team.

I think he scales differently from other damaging sidekicks like shadow because his key damage bonus passive is on crit, so at low levels his damage seems low, because of a lower base and low level items have poor crit bonuses. Assuming he is weak, noone bothers to see how he looks at high levels.

At higher levels, when you have alot of crit items, he pretty much only crits. And he has really good range, so in fights where enemies start far he starts attacking before anyone else.

Im not saying he is awesome, or better then other sidekicks. But i think he is quite competitive.